Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19990805DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes August 5, 1999 Roger Moyer, Vice-Chairperson, called the Design Review Appeals Commission meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with members Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich and Mary Hirsch. Tim Mooney arrived at 5:15 p.m. Steve Buettow was excused; Jeffrey Halferty was absent. Staff members present were Chris Bendon, Community Development; David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Roger Moyer inquired about the home being built at Park & Cooper (second from the right) a 2½ story addition with huge window openings. The commission noted this was another example of the rules not working; the variance was denied on this building and the results were still bad. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Steve Buettow recused himself. MINUTES - June 3, 1999 MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the June 3, 1999 minutes. Mary Hirsch second. APPROVED 3-0. REVIEW CRITERIA : a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints PUBLIC HEARING: WESTEND PARTNERSHIP, 234 WEST HALLAM – WINDOW STANDARD & ONE STORY ELEMENT Sworn In: Jim Colombo, applicant. The Affidavit of Notice was presented at the public hearing and David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the notice met the jurisdictional requirements for the commission to proceed. He noted there were four members present and asked if the applicant wanted to continue this hearing. Colombo replied that it was a difficult position and stated that he waited two months to make this presentation. Bob Blaich noted there was only one member missing, since Steve had a conflict. Chris Bendon commented that the house was currently under construction and if the windows were not approved tonight, these windows would have to be modified. Colombo distributed new drawings and provided a model. 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes August 5, 1999 Bendon stated that there were 2 variance requests Window standard, relating to ¬ windows between 9 and 12 feet. There was a penalty associated with it would be counted twice towards floor area. There were two houses on the lot and this was the East House. There was a series of windows that exceeded the 9 feet. Roger Moyer asked for clarification on the drawings. Colombo said that the intent of the ordinance was clearly to define the window separation between a lower level and an upper level. He said so there was not a huge mass; it continued to step-back. He said there was a distinct separation of the massing of the windows on the first and second levels and a 3-dimensional separation by the balcony. Colombo distributed 2 additional drawings One story element, requiring at least 20% of the front façade to be one story. ­ Bendon said that the porch structure was a second floor element. Staff recommends denial of the one story element request waiver. Colombo said that the element exceed 20% it was 32%. He said they subtly stepped back the mass. He felt that they architecturally exceeded the element. Colombo illustrated with photo storyboard of the surrounding neighborhood noting all the 2 story facades. He felt this house fulfilled the spirit of the ordinance. Bob Blaich noted the references with 1880 vintage houses that do not compare to other houses. Blaich asked if it was a spec project. Colombo answered it was spec and asked what bearing it had for the review. Colombo said the house was Neo- Victorian. Tim Mooney said that for this design to become compliant, the part of the deck that behind the copula, could be brought around so that it came into the roof element. Roger asked which was correct, the drawing or model with the elevation and with the porch ceiling at 8’ or the porch ceiling at 10’. Colombo replied that the transom windows were at 9’. No public comments. Mary Hirsch said they were to decide upon two variance requests, everything shown was acceptable because of “B” and the one story element was better looking. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes August 5, 1999 Mooney said that he didn’t find a problem with the windows and that would make the house more livable. He said that if they wanted to comply with the ordinance, it could be re-designed. Blaich said the point in construction today was an assumption that the variances would be granted and to build to this point was an arrogant position. He said that Colombo should have come in long before this time, but to build and then come in for appeals was wrong. Blaich said that this was a manner of principal to sell the commission; he stated that he was not in favor of approval based upon that position. Moyer said what if this was an historic element, this is a story and 1/3 or 1/4 and HPC would say that this is too grand, it could be dropped down and made to human scale. He said the entry was not to human scale at 12’. Colombo replied that it was 10’. Moyer said this would look like a restaurant at night (a huge wall of light) and that was not the intent of the ordinance, which was a friendly residential feel when you walked down the street. Moyer said that he would say no on this variance unless it was reduced to 8’ high. Moyer agreed with Blaich that asking for approval after the fact was not right ; 3 months ago it was already framed. Hoefer noted that technically there was no approval and the project could be red-tagged. The commission took the model apart and placed the cap lower. They all agreed nd that the 2 floor deck could be waived but the second story should be lowered. Colombo stated that he should have the right to respond to the comments. He said that the idea of lowering to human scale was acceptable. He said the comment of the windows being over-bearing was something that he couldn’t see. He said that they were in scale with the neighborhood and the community. He said that the intent of the ordinance was not to just limit to 9’ as the highest point a window, but because it was threshold. He said these were technically thresholds. Colombo said this board exists for the spirit of compliance and interpretation with common sense and judgement. He said the board exists for instances like this. Colombo stated that he was willing to the make entry level threshold and agreed with staff on compliance. He said the board had the right to approve these windows. Mooney requested positive feedback from the commission for conditions so applicant does not have to come back. Bendon suggested a condition that Jim get a change order to the building permit before he does it. He said there was concern about the structural aspects. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes August 5, 1999 Blaich asked if the house in the present condition could have been it red-tagged; why wasn’t it re-tagged. Bendon replied that because he was in for review, that there was no red-tag issued. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to grant a variance for the Westend partnership, 234 West Hallam, for the windows as represented in the application included in conditions 1,2,3 & 4; a change order and a building permit be issued to re-design the front window design to be in compliance meeting the recommended the cantilevered bay of front façade to 12” – 18” as acceptable. Mary Hirsch second. Moyer, no; Blaich, no; Hirsch, yes; Mooney, yes. DENIED 2-2. Hirsch asked who would be watching over the project to keep the project within the spirit of the intent. Bendon said that he would be the monitor. Mooney stated that he was making the motion in the spirit of compromise; he said the motion was a better alternative. Moyer said the applicant had to come in with real plans and HPC got into trouble by trying to help out someone. Moyer said that the applicant should just follow the plans. Mooney agreed that the applicant was behind the spirit issue and attitude for application and approval process should change. Hirsch said she loved to go by the spirit of the law but was sympathetic to the time of 60 days out and she felt that they had to be reasonable. Hoefer commented that the waiting period for building permits in Laguna Beach was ½ 2 years; so we were pretty quick here. Blaich said that he gambled to get it through and if he didn’t win, then he got to wait. Bendon stated for the record that this case came in about 2 weeks ago not 60 days ago. Colombo responded that he was ready to submit 60 days ago and Sara Thomas said that there was not a full board or application. Hoefer noted that the 60 days was not an issue one way or the other. Moyer stated that there wasn’t a board member that wouldn’t meet even next Thursday to help facilitate any project. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to grant a variance for the Westend partnership, East House, located at 234 West Hallam, for the waiver of the one story element story to create a more functional space and complies with the design standards. Mary Hirsch second. Blaich, no; Moyer, no; Hirsch, no; Mooney, yes. DENIED 3-1. Tim Mooney said there was a solution to re-design and eliminate the flat deck space to comply with the roof or one-story element. Moyer and Blaich wanted to see drawings. Blaich said that he understood why Tim wanted to do the re-design, but it 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minutes August 5, 1999 made the house less livable. Blaich said that he agreed with what Roger proposed (to see drawings). Hirsch said that she wanted to withdraw the motion. Mooney said that if they denied both motions then he could come back in with new drawings. Hoefer said that then the meeting could be continued to a date certain. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the public hearing for the Westend Partnership, East House located 234 West Hallam to Noon on Thursday, August 12, 1999. Mary Hirsch second. APPROVED 4-0. Lothian asked Jim Colombo if the drawings could be provided prior to the meeting for staff and the board to review. Colombo replied that he would have the drawings in on Tuesday and the model adjusted for the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5